Ian

Law=deism, well when it got into science,
the history of metaphor of course, what's
a law without a law maker? So a metaphor
with a dodgy assumption.

When we say law are we not saying form of behaviour
that just happens to repeat sometimes or alot? Pattern
or repeat is a better more neutral term/metaphor.

David M


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "ian glendinning" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, April 12, 2007 9:18 PM
Subject: Re: [MD] Heads or tails?


> David, agreed explanation is "sense-making".
>
> But not sure why law implies deism.
> Evolution is the result of circumstance - things are the way they are
> (laws) because that's the way they are. Similar patterns recur in
> different situations and levels because they are the "preferred"
> solution to all those dynamically interacting laws across many levels
> - preferred in some efficient / elegant / quality sense, not some
> conscious will sense .....
>
> But we've debated this before - we're bumping up against what our
> metaphors of will and consciouness really reflect about our experience
> (your comment to Ham)
>
> Ian
>
> On 4/12/07, David M <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Hi Ian
>>
>> Yes, I can make sense of choice and accident,
>> but law seems to assume deism. Choice I think means
>> some kind of preference or lure. Why repeat or avoid?
>> A matter of experienced quality?
>>
>> David M
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "ian glendinning" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> Sent: Thursday, April 12, 2007 7:48 PM
>> Subject: Re: [MD] Heads or tails?
>>
>>
>> > Assuming you were talking chaotic patterns in repeated calculations ?
>> >
>> > Interesting, it's an accurate metaphor in the sense that the rounding
>> > limits - in a calculating machine - are properties of the machine that
>> > manifest themselves in the patterns.
>> >
>> > ie the patterns are part of physical laws, but they are inherent in
>> > the process of interaction, calculation upon calculation, rather than
>> > the static machine.
>> >
>> > The attractors (patterns) exist but they exist in a "strange" dynamic
>> > space.
>> >
>> > David's "Why" is of course a mixed question of explanation and/or 
>> > purpose
>> > ... ?
>> >
>> > Ian
>> >
>> > On 4/12/07, Ron Kulp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Case/Ron
>> >>
>> >> The real mystery is why are there patterns and repeats?
>> >>
>> >> David M
>> >>
>> >> David,
>> >> My hunch is the manifestation of static quality.
>> >> The value mechanism called quality is the real mystery to me
>> >> Did you catch any of the 2+2=5 rounding error posts
>> >> That Case and I kicked around? I feel the rounding
>> >> Limit in mathmatics is a perfect example and a relaivly
>> >> Accurate metaphor for this phenomena.
>> >> -Ron
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> moq_discuss mailing list
>> >> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
>> >> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
>> >> Archives:
>> >> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
>> >> http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
>> >>
>> > moq_discuss mailing list
>> > Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
>> > http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
>> > Archives:
>> > http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
>> > http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
>> >
>>
>>
>> moq_discuss mailing list
>> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
>> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
>> Archives:
>> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
>> http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
>>
> moq_discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
> 


moq_discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/

Reply via email to